Find Madeleine McCann On Facebook
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SAY the McCanns: “We strongly support and encourage this new initiative to use Facebook to increase awareness of missing children.”
Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, you will know that children go missing.
Although not if you’re watching the TV news of reading the newspapers because Madeleine McCann is no longer in the mass media.
But the campaign has not been in vain. She is on a press release.
And the better news is that no children have gone missing in the past few weeks. We look through the mainstream press every day. It’s a fact. But what of life on the internet?
The statement goes on: “Using the power of social media in this way will undoubtedly capture the attention - and hopefully the help - of a younger population who are a hugely valuable and resourceful group.
“We would urge the millions of Facebook users around the world to keep looking and to do what they can to help bring these children home.”
Missing People has set up a widget for Facebook users to download, which will mean information on current appeals will be displayed on their homepage.
Says missing People Chief Executive Paul Tuohy: “If every Facebook user downloaded our BT-powered application, millions of people internationally could see an appeal that could help us to reunite a family.”
Because BT cares…
Madeleine McCann: Fighting the PR war
Posted: 25th, May 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Online-PR Comments (1,240) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- June on Chilcot Inquiry Into Iraq War: Day 2 In Pictures
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
May 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
641…Garth
Oh dear, Garth….quoting an 1847 article.
Present day… Chloroform came to be widely used for other procedures but its dangerous side effects have relegated it to the annals of medical history.
Dear dear me….scraping the barrel tonight.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
641
Garth Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:38 am
————————————–
Amazing article; things have moved on from then…
May 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
647
yampster
May 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
626
Saul Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Blimey, abducted by Torchy the battery boy.
time for a new eggman sketch perhaps.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Milady, who is this Yampster character?
May 26th, 2008 at 12:42 am
638
Châtelaine
The old multi poster end game. If in doubt claim it is is more than one poster. It doesn’t work anymore. You just can’t believe that more than one person thinks you are ridiculous can you?
May 26th, 2008 at 12:42 am
636
Garth Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Chenier
The Royal College of Anaesthetists has questioned the accuracy of the reports. A spokesman said: “It is the view of the College that it would not be possible to render someone unconscious by blowing ether, chloroform or any of the currently used volatile anaesthetic agents through the window of a Motorhome or RV without their knowledge, even if they were sleeping at the time.”
The point here is that they say”blowing the substances through a window”. No mention of chloroform being placed directly to the face of a person.
————————————————–
You are omitting the context; the RCOA covered the possibility of a using a pad soaked in ether pressed to the face of the person, but pointed out that it wouldn’t work either since it would also fail to bring about immediate unconsciousness. Time when Madeleine would be screaming the place down…
May 26th, 2008 at 12:41 am
639
sam
May 26th, 2008 at 12:40 am
621
Garth Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:15 am
614
sam Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Maybe this person opened the bedroom door (didnt Gerry find it open?) to gain a little light. And I would have though the shutters would have been opened prior to picking up little Maddy?
the shutters in my experience don’t open noiselessly, they rattle quite a bit, so that’s another risk. i think the bedroom door was left open a bit. if you were sneaking a child out through a window wouldn’t you close the bedroom door first ? i think i might.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:40 am
642…Sledgehammer
Be quiet you old bag o bones.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Matt the gum bumper, some things never change.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:38 am
James Young Simpson, “On a New Anæsthetic Agent, More Efficient than Sulphuric Ether.”
At the first winter meeting of the Medico-Chirurgical Society of Edinburgh, held on the 10th of November last, I had an opportunity of directing the attention of the members to a new agent which I had been using for some time previously, for the purpose of producing insensibility to pain in surgical and obstetric practice.
This new æsthetic agent is chloroform, chloroformyle, or perchloride of formyle. [1] Its composition is expressed by the chemical formula C2HCl3. It can be procured by various processes, as by making milk of lime, or an aqueous solution of caustic alkali, act upon chloral; by distilling alcohol, pyroxylic spirit, or acetone, with chloride of lime; by leading a stream of chlorine gas into a solution of cuastic potass, in spirit of wine, &c. The resulting chloroform obtained by these processes is a heavy, clear, transparent liquid, with a specific gravity as high as 1.480. It is not inflammable. It evaporates readily, and boils at 140° . It possesses an agreeable, fragrant, fruit-like odour, and a saccharine, pleasant taste.
As an inhaled anæsthetic agent, it possesses, I believe, all the advantages of sulphuric ether, without its principle disadvantages.
1. A greatly less quantity of chloroform than of ether is requisite to produce the anæsthetic effect — usually from a hundred to a hundred and twenty drops of chloroform being sufficient, and with some patients much less. I have seen a strong person rendered completely insensible by seven inspiration of thirty drops only of the liquid.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:37 am
636…Garth
Ever smelt Ether ?
Chloroform has the same strong, lingering smell…would be very evident if
used in such circumstances.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:36 am
617
Matt. Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:13 am
614…sam
Don’t forget the Miner’s Helmet.
oh yes
or one of them torches, forget what they’re called, maglights i think ? held between the teeth of course. 
May 26th, 2008 at 12:35 am
635
yampster Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:31 am
***
Also funny to see sometimes multi-posters talking to themselves [because they forget to change identity...]
May 26th, 2008 at 12:34 am
615
M and A
Sam wouldn’t they have nightlights?
i dont’ know. i think i’d leave the bathroom light on in case one got up for the loo etc. but then anyone inside the apartment presumably could be seen from the patio windows moving about.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Chenier
The Royal College of Anaesthetists has questioned the accuracy of the reports. A spokesman said: “It is the view of the College that it would not be possible to render someone unconscious by blowing ether, chloroform or any of the currently used volatile anaesthetic agents through the window of a Motorhome or RV without their knowledge, even if they were sleeping at the time.”
The point here is that they say”blowing the substances through a window”. No mention of chloroform being placed directly to the face of a person.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:31 am
634
Châtelaine
Only two of us so far. I have to give Garth the credit for coining it. It’s good though isn’t it?
May 26th, 2008 at 12:29 am
628
yampster Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:26 am
624
Châtelaine
If you care to go back you can do a search and you will see that I appeared after buntyhunter called me a thug. Are you suggesting that Totje and Buntyhunter are one and the same? Now that would be interesting
***
Funny that only you and Garth call BOuntyhunter Buntyhunter …
May 26th, 2008 at 12:29 am
630
Rasputin
Who indeed. They seek him here, they seek him there
May 26th, 2008 at 12:29 am
630…Rasputin
Some silly old woman….who got into trouble.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:28 am
590
Garth Says:
May 25th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
#
548
gillyflower Says:
May 25th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
541 Garth
Thanks!
A fellow Pythonite.
———
Indeedy
Chenier
And what do you know about chloroform?
————————————–
Not a lot.
On the other hand the Royal College of Anaesthetists knows a very great deal. I’m grateful for your generosity in providing me with an opportunity to quote their statements once again:
The Royal College of Anaesthetists has questioned the accuracy of the reports. A spokesman said: “It is the view of the College that it would not be possible to render someone unconscious by blowing ether, chloroform or any of the currently used volatile anaesthetic agents through the window of a Motorhome or RV without their knowledge, even if they were sleeping at the time.”
“If there were a totally safe, odourless, potent, cheap anaesthetic agent available to thieves for this purpose it is likely that the medical profession would know about it and be investigating its use in anaesthetic practice.”
One of their frequently asked questions is also about this topic:
It would not be possible to render someone unconscious with ether without their knowledge, even if they were sleeping at the time. Ether is an extremely pungent agent and a relatively weak anaesthetic by modern standards and has a very irritant affect on the air passages, causing coughing and sometimes vomiting. It takes some time to reach unconsciousness, even if given by direct application to the face on a cloth, and the concentration needed by some sort of spray into a room would be enormous. The smell hangs around for days and would be obvious to anyone the next day.
There are much more powerful agents around now, some of which are almost odourless. However these would be unlikely to be able to achieve this effect, and the cost would be huge enough to deter any thief unless he was after the crown jewels. Potential agents, such as the one used by the Russians in the Moscow siege are few in number and difficult to obtain.
Finally, unsupervised anaesthesia is very dangerous. In the Moscow siege about 20% of victims died from asphyxia, because their airways were unprotected. If the reports of holidaymakers being anaesthetized by injection of ether into a caravan or motorhome are true we would have expected a significant number of deaths or cases of serious brain damage to have been reported.’
I could find some more, but you’ve got the gist. No anaesthetic would work in the situation in question…
May 26th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Who is Sledgehammer, why are we to be warned.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:26 am
#
623
sam Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:20 am
mind you i do think tanner is at best mistaken, jeremey wilkins carried his daughter back to their flat the evening before from the creche after dinner according to his partner and i do think jane tanner might’ve been describing that, considering also that neither jeremey wilkins nor gerry saw tanner pass them that evening.
————–
You cannot be serious?
May 26th, 2008 at 12:26 am
624
Châtelaine
If you care to go back you can do a search and you will see that I appeared after buntyhunter called me a thug. Are you suggesting that Totje and Buntyhunter are one and the same? Now that would be interesting
May 26th, 2008 at 12:26 am
595
Garth Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:01 am
‘You need to read all the posts to understand what im trying to say.’
i skip over the internal fighting ones.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Blimey, abducted by Torchy the battery boy.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:22 am
#
621
jass Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Garth:
You have pointed out before there was no light from outside.
There were no lights at the front, that’s why (you said) the abductor didn’t use the patio doors, where there was some light, to carry Madeleine away.
————–
Jass
Had the door been opened light would have come through the patio doors from the side street which was lit and why the abductor didnt exit that way.
Anyway, what does it matter? The focker might have been sophisticated and carried a torch.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:20 am
619
yampster Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:14 am
599
Châtelaine
So, which is it? I am here when Totje calls or I am here when anyone calls?
Make your mind up.
****
I’m too polite no to reply. Please read again, I resume: I NOTICED you always appeared after Totje would call on you, BUT TODAY, in her absence, you appeared when someone ELSE called on you.
[Now, that is interesting, isn't it ...?]
May 26th, 2008 at 12:20 am
575
chenier Says:
May 25th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
‘The problem with this is that there are no short term methods of sedating someone which don’t involve either sticking a needle in them, thus resulting in them screaming the place down, or using some sort of gas unknown to medical science.’
so not cloroform ? i don’t know, only know such from telly, thought that might work ? the child tanner describes as being carried did not look like it was kicking and screaming did it now.
mind you i do think tanner is at best mistaken, jeremey wilkins carried his daughter back to their flat the evening before from the creche after dinner according to his partner and i do think jane tanner might’ve been describing that, considering also that neither jeremey wilkins nor gerry saw tanner pass them that evening.